Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of conventional agriculture


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of conventional agriculture

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Article contains a lot of speculative information, reads like an essay and any useful information would fit much better under Agriculture or Intensive/Industrial farming. Had previously been proposed for deletion under the heading Traditional Farming before being moved AIR corn (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jujutacular  talk 01:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with Agriculture. It's a nice article with very good references, so I think merging it would be good. Endofskull (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete They are very nice thoughts, but nowhere near an encyclopedia article. A section in agriculture on the topic is a good idea. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with the article about agriculture. If the information from this article is meant to be either relocated to another article or be deleted, I rather see another article inherit this kind of information than to see it vanish off the face of the encyclopedia. GVnayR (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid we can't merge it. What we have here is a novel synthesis.  The sources are good but they support the individual facts in the article.  They do not support its thesis or conclusions.  In other words, it's a form of well-sourced original research, and it can't appear in the mainspace in its current form. Equally we shouldn't ask the closer to delete this material out of hand, because it does contain a number of sourced facts and policy enjoins us not to remove them.  Our choices seem to be: (1) either to suggest that the closer userfies this material to an experienced editor who is willing to use the sources, but not its thesis or conclusion, to support the agriculture article (and the experienced editor may need to be an administrator, because our content licences might require a history merge that only an administrator could perform); or (2) if no such helpful administrator is forthcoming during the seven days of this AfD, to copy/paste the sources to the talk page of agriculture, where interested editors could selectively incorporate the sources into the article and then request that an administrator considers a history merge at that point. Of course, it would be a great deal simpler to delete it and start again, but the guidelines require us to exhaust the alternatives to deletion before doing so, and there is an alternative.— S Marshall  T/C 22:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete, WP:ESSAY, WP:CFORK. Sole creator of the essay needs to work to achieve consensus to add material to the main agriculture articles. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. If, by some chance, this is kept, then the title certainly needs to be changed. Agriculural conventions vary enormously over time and place, so no one type can be called "conventional". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have decided to change my vote to rename. Maybe this article should be renamed as Criticism of modern agriculture. GVnayR (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.